Gender reassignment surgery... Would you then be happy with them in female spaces?

[TurquoiseChevrotain]

I don't have an issue with transgender individuals, etc.

However, I know there are feminism issues. Jus curious if a biological male has his penis removed, do you still have an issue?

@Datun no I haven't really ever seen what it looks like... No, I'm not a transwoman. I'm a woman I definitely do see a distinction. To me, someone who chooses not to go through with surgery must be okay with their genitalia? (I may be making a massive assumption here) and clearly wants to identify as a specific sex as quite frankly, it's easier to be a transwoman than a man who likes dresses and make-up. When the reality is, if society wouldn't judge them on their likes, etc. they would be happy with the sex they biologically are. I believe that if someone has had puberty blockers and never gone through male puberty, then had surgery, etc. I honestly don't see the issue. I appreciate they are biologically male, but then they too are at a disadvantage (they haven't gone through male puberty, etc.) I appreciate this is the minority though. I don't see how a Biological female would even feel uncomfortable with someone like that in their space. I also don't see why they couldn't be in a female prison and perform in female sports?? If they never went through male puberty as surely no advantage??

I fully understand though why a man who says they are female but is actually a grown man in a dress with some make-up on isn't accepted in any of the spaces I have just mentioned though.

However, I find transgender confusing. I absolutely accept them. I'd accept someone who wanted to modify their body though. However, I think it's odd how all trans people end up trying to look like a stereo type male/female, so clearly that's what they want. It's a shame they can't just feel comfortable being a 'masculine' woman or being a 'feminine' man, if that makes sense? However, therapy is definitely needed for the ones who feel depressed by their body.

It's all complicated.

Regarding sport, the differences between male and female are not all about puberty and testosterone - males are physiologically stronger from infancy.

www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12147825

"The reasons for the striking sexual dimorphism in muscle, fat, and bone volume in prepubertal children are unknown. Considerable evidence indicates, however, that during the first months of life the gonads secrete sex steroids (48–50), and there is an increase in leptin (51) and free insulin-like growth factor I bioavailability (52). The precise function of this hormonal surge is yet to be determined. However, as many of the physical changes during the pubertal transition (such as the accelerated growth and the dimorphic increases in fat, muscle, and bone mass) are mediated, at least in part, through sex steroids, leptin, and insulin-like growth factor I, it is reasonable to suppose that there is a similar relationship between these regulators and the increases in fat and musculoskeletal development during infancy."

The question you are asking women is really "what sort of man would you be willing to have enter women only spaces".

To which my answer is " no sort as then those spaces are no longer women only".

It's very straightforward.

Feminists know that any erosion of women's rights must be taken seriously. Precedents are often a threat to women and that is the case here. Anyway it's a moot point as currently we are not allowed to differentiate between post op transwomen who are attracted to men and intact transwomen who get hardons from listening to women toileting.

Prickly you are spot on there actually.
I lurk on these threads more than I post as everything I want to say is always said far more eloquently by other posters.

And I just get too wound up by posters like Crowdo who are just so ignorant it's painful.

"I believe that if someone has had puberty blockers and never gone through male puberty, then had surgery, etc. I honestly don't see the issue"

I'm against this because it encourages the medication of children. We will be forcing children to make life changing decisions at 9, 10 and 11 years old. Puberty is an important part of growing up and halting it will just isolate them further from their peers.

You make it sound so simple beach

I've always been a put up and shut up person, I don't like to cause a fuss and im.nive to people as a rule. I wait patiently of someone's taking a while, I smile at people dealing with screaming kids, hell I stand there talking to kids if they approach me and start talking, I'll lend you 50p5if yoir scrabbling for bus fare change, I'll talk to anyone and everyone I don't care if you are a Martian.

I've put up with alot over the years in the name of keeping the peace and keeping punters happy at work. I take comments I even take hands where they shouldn't be and by God I've taken some abuse from people to avoid being called ageist or disablist or racist and i recuse most the time to succumb to stereotypes in how I treat people just to prove the point that you shouldn't judge or make assumptions etc and I've kept doing so even when it's backfired. Im.not "phobic" of anyone. I do t care what you wear or do to yourself.or what you look like.

But that's not the message o wabtbto send to my kids. I don't want them to put up and shut up. That's taking things to far. I teach them to be kind and patient and treat others as they wish to be treated.

But it's not a big ask that they are comfortable and confident with who they change with or deal with in various situations.

If there was a way to somehow ensure that the only people it would let in were the genuine transsexual People, those like curry and the others who are just going about their business quietly and causing harm to no one then it would be ok.

But that's not how it is is all or nothing and we just can't or at least shouldn't have to have that we and dont deserve the abuse for saying that.

And your right beach the complications are all in the million scenarios we are conjuring up in our head trying to justify things when it is that simple. No men in X space.

And totally agree with the pp who said that why is making women uncomfortable preferable to actually dealing with the men causing the problems

TurquoiseChevrotain

Thanks for answering. I see where you're coming from, now.

I agree with BigDeskBob. The last thing I want to do is encourage surgery and medication in children.

And it is being encouraged. Many late transitioning men would give their right arm to look more female. If you go online to any of the trans sites where people are wondering if they are trans. The answer is usually a vehement yes.

It supports the narrative that they always knew. When in fact that's often not the case. Again, just look at the online discussions.

It's no surprise that the sites for parents of trans children recommend the first thing you do is stop them going online.

Beachcomber

The question you are asking women is really "what sort of man would you be willing to have enter women only spaces".

To which my answer is " no sort as then those spaces are no longer women only

Nailed it.

it's easier to be a transwoman than a man who likes dresses and make-up. When the reality is, if society wouldn't judge them on their likes, etc. they would be happy with the sex they biologically are.

Well yes, this is a big part of the problem. But the more we 'treat' males who simply like to wear clothing usually associated with females by 'accepting' them as women, the LESS males will feel comfortable just wearing dresses and we will just have more huge increases in people who aren't actually trans at all but classified as such, and also if Maria Miller gets her way...the end of single sex spaces.

I believe that if someone has had puberty blockers and never gone through male puberty, then had surgery, etc. I honestly don't see the issue

I absolutely believe anyone who puts their child on blockers (chemotherapy...for those who don't know, certainly not harmless) for reasons such as 'trans' are abusing their child. Obviously it is nice to give your kids what they want, or think they want...but a kid at 8 or 9, well quite bluntly they wouldn't be able to make any other permanent life changing decisions, so WHY this? Why are we sterilizing kids, blocking brain development and such?

A lot of brain development happens during puberty, so it is no surprise to me that 100% of kids put on blockers, go onto cross sex hormones, as their brains have not developed properly and they will be stuck in the frame of mind of a 9 year old...which sadly is...I like playing with dolls and wearing skirts so I am a girl...due to ridiculous stereotypes and parents/peers that enforce 'gender' rigidly.

I feel extremely sorry for parents today, being frightened into going down the blockers route by organizations with ulterior agendas, such as mermaids. Parents being told that if you do not shove your child onto dangerous drugs that are very likely to cause them serious health problems, they will commit suicide. 'Backed up' by totally false stats on it. Quite what are these organizations getting out of this? I fully believe in 10/20 years once this generation of 'trans kids' grown up and realise what has actually been done to them...there will be no end of lawsuits and this whole ridiculous thing will be stopped dead in its tracks and we will look back on it with a very 'wtf were we thinking' attitude. Its just a shame that so many kids will be collateral damage in it when if people just thought rationally, and mermaids and their ilk stopped scaring people...the damage could be minimized.

Yes a few of these transkids could actually turn out to be transsexual and want to modify themselves in adulthood. Why not wait til then? Why the rush, and the not caring about the 80% desistance rate. Essentially, 4/5 kids with 'gender' issues as kids, grow out of it when simply left alone to discover themselves. And most of these 4/5 turn out to simply be gay. Pushing kids to go on blockers is essentially as someone said (not sure if it was in this thread or not, but I copied this on my FB status also) 'transing the gay away'. Modern day eugenics. And widely supported due to huge media manipulation and pressure from males with AGP. Its barmy really when you think about it properly.

So true, Horny. I know a few children who had to be put on puberty blockers after chemo treatment for cancer caused precocious puberty and these drugs have some serious side effects, too. They really should not be used unless absolutely necessary.

And yet I was rounded upon by TRAs on twitter recently telling me that puberty blockers were completely reversible. I have been meaning to ask if anyone has good links about blockers?

Blockers are technically reversible, in that if the kid stops taking them they will then (in most cases) go through normal puberty, but tis still putting off much needed brain development, for what? So that IF the child is in the minority who is actually transsexual, they will be able to look a bit more like the sex they are wanting to mimic? The risks are just ridiculous.

dailysignal.com/2017/06/20/new-paper-says-puberty-blockers-arent-answer-gender-confusion/

Whereas 80 to 95 percent of children with gender dysphoria will come to identify with and embrace their biological sex, none of the children placed on puberty blockers in the Dutch clinic that pioneered this treatment came to identify with their biological sex. All of them persisted in their transgender identity.

gendertrender.wordpress.com/tag/puberty-blockers/

LOTS of articles about the effects and such of 'harmless and reversible' blockers

www.nwhn.org/lupron-what-does-it-do-to-womens-health/
www.consumeraffairs.com/news/new-report-describes-dangers-of-giving-lupron-to-kids-020317.html

It is genuinely scary how people are not aware of this. we have had parents of 'trans kids' on here telling us that mermaids also tell them blockers (and even cross sex hormones) are totally harmless and reversible, which is clearly and demonstrably, totally false.

Lupron...and how dangerous it actually is

I don't have a link but I think the claim that puberty blockers are reversible comes from how they've been used in the past - ie if a child takes them for a year or two purely to halt precocious puberty, then comes off them, they then go through puberty as normal.

In that sense they are reversible but obviously in the case of transing kids, they may well take the blockers for a whole lot longer in the first place, and then they usually move straight onto cross sex hormones - so totally not reversible as they then never go through actual puberty. Just another example of the way the TRAs and their allies twist facts to suit their own agenda.

And of course the side effects we're now hearing so much about are just not reversible. Many women who took Lupron, I believe, have been left with serious and lasting problems.

So there are two different issues there - the consequences of the redesignation of PBs for "trans" kids; and the side effects.

Hopefully someone else will be along with a link or two!

I was too slow

Usually its me thats too slow, so happy I got in a few seconds before you

Nah but its always useful to have a few different comprehensive answers to stuff like this, if for nothing else, to educate lurkers in whats actually going on, rather than what they are told is happening by TAs and such

Thanks to both of you, that's great.

Twitter locked my account, fuckers. Demanding a phone number to unlock. No chance

I've kind of been through the full spectrum of thoughts on this as I've learned more about the issues.

Historically I thought of trans women as the, for want of a better word, true transsexual; someone who have gender dysphoria, was massively unhappy with their physical body, had probably had or was on the waiting list for very invasive surgery. I felt sympathetic, and didn't see the harm with these people using the same loos, for example. And I think this was a courtesy which a lot of women were more than happy to extend.

However trans has now become a very broad umbrella term and those people are now a minority; a small proportion of TW have full reassignment surgery, many are not on proper hormonal regimes (either not at all, or buying hormones online with unpredictable results) and many do not have true dysphoria. AGP has been covered upthread.

And that causes a problem - how is a woman supposed to tell the difference at a glance? And the reality is, we can't. You can't tell by looking at a clothed person if they've had full reassignment surgery or if they've had no treatment at all and are just the proverbial man in a dress.

The change in numbers of people calling themselves TW and the change in what we class as TW means that for me, the majority of TW do not belong in woman's safe spaces, and unfortunately that means that in a scenario which depends on woman (and men to an extent) self enforcing (like toilets, changing rooms etc) I now feel that we have to say no to all TW simply because otherwise there is no way for it to be managed.

Longer term female spaces - say halls of residence, prisons etc - are a bit different in that evidence can be gathered and an individual decision made and as a result I would say that in those situations we could possible permit full post surgery transsexuals subject to appropriate vetting and individual consideration. But I would say the criteria would need to be strict and the evidence provided fairly extensive and even then I'm not sure because I dislike the idea that this could encourage people to go through such extensive surgery.

In the current world we're living in and seeing the incredible violence, misogyny and sheer hate towards women which is permeating through large elements of the trans activist movement then I would say no.

Same happened to me assignedperfect (last night) - you can remove the number again from your account. I think it happens if you're tweeting repeatedly and rapidly about the same issue - they phone you with a code to enter.

@Elanetical - are they? I watched that no more boys and girls and they said there was no physical differences between them until puberty?

Oh, I fully agree, I think it's terrible that children are forced down the transgender route, but was just explaining. I think the worst is when I see US documentaries and it's of a 3 year old!!! The parents saying "oh he has always loved princesses, that's when we knew he was transgender" - that's just horrific parenting.

Yeah, I think studies have shown that younger kids there is no difference at all, and up to about 11-12 there is a difference, but barely. This is from memory though, but fairly sure this is how it is.

Oh dear, I didn;t actually see the post Elanetical put about this. Yes, that is a much more reliable source than my memory xD

Also searching now (should have searched before posting really) all I seem to be able to find are blogs and such that state there is no difference. So maybe I just read opinion pieces rather than actual medical studies.

I think there is a difference pre puberty, biologically speaking.

www.babycenter.com/0_raising-boys-and-girls-differences-in-development_3659011.bc

@Italiangreyhound - it says that there are no physical differences until puberty, even on the link you posted? The other differences are due to what toys are marketed at them, etc. However, that's kind of irrelevant as this is about physical grown.

TurquoiseChevrotain which bit did you read?

I would not say that Babycentre was the diffinative authority but at

www.babycenter.com/0_raising-boys-and-girls-differences-in-development_3659011.bc

Was it the first bit:

"Between the big growth stages of infancy and adolescence, boys and girls grow in height and weight at about the same slow but steady rate."

If you read on "There aren't notable differences between the sexes until late elementary school – that's when girls start to grow taller faster, although boys catch up and exceed them within a few years."

Boys gross motor skills develop slightly faster, girls fine motor skills grow fast, this could be training as boys may be given a ball and girls a pencil first, but I think most parents would universally give a ball before a pencil irrespective of sex.

"Boys are also more physically aggressive and impulsive, as revealed by studies of their brains. The pleasure center of the brain actually lights up more for boys when they take risks. That's not to say that girls aren't active risk-takers, only that, on average, boys are more so."

Again this could be training.

It then goes on to point out the type of home you are born in may influence things.

"Researchers say it's possible that sex-related genes or hormones account for the different ways the brains of boys and girls react to human speech." More boys are late talkers etc. Although again this could be accounted for by the way children are socialized.

"Girls tend to be better at reading nonverbal signs, like tone of voice and expression, which also makes them better communicators early on because they can connect feelings and words faster." Again is this training or a natural ability? I don't know.

Again not sure of the reason... "On average, girls are potty trained earlier than boys, though it's unclear whether this is due to physical or social differences."

"Girls enter puberty about one year before boys."

"Researchers continue to study the developmental differences between boys and girls and what causes them, but it's important to remember that biology alone doesn't determine the kind of son or daughter you'll have. Exposing your child to a wide range of activities and experiences is the best way to support a well-rounded, active child."

So it's not clear why there are differences but it seems there are. None of these differences mean girls are better or worse than boys or more of less likely to succeed etc. If we were not always required to prove that girls were just as good as boys maybe we would be interested in these differences. Of course the brain is very plastic so we may never know if these things are all just learnt.